I am really getting sick of people inserting their politics into civ. If you have a problem with this gameplay-wise then fine, but lets not go down the rabbit hole of asking Firaxis to change things to fit our political beliefs because chances are we all have different beliefs and its impossible to please us all at once.

Click to expand...

Oh bull, everything about a game representing nations and leaders of said nations is bound to be political in some way:

Including Georgia unavoidably comes of as political in the current political climate surrounding Russian-Georgian relations.

There is a reason no civ title has included major Ancient civs like Isreal or any other Jewish kingdom, that reason being politics.

Including Makedon as a nation seperate from Greece is extremely controversial. Particularly if led by a leader both Modern Macedonians and Greeks claim exclusive right to.

Including Chiggis Khan, one of the most notorious mass murderers in history, and Mao and Stalin in previous versions, (Alex or Washington to a lesser extent) is of course politically charged.

Attaching certain advantages and disadvantages to government types and policies is highly politically charged.

And yes making a heteronormative agenda like this one is a political statement.

Whether these poljtical statements are intentional or not doesn't matter, deliberately not making a statement is also a statement. Firaxis is not making Patience or Chess. This is a game at its very core about history, and history comes with political bagage and yes that includes identity politics.

I personally have no agenda with agendas.
I think they work and are what makes some leaders happy early and some not. That just works.
As for a leader disliking me because I do not have neutral gender toilets or whatever, that’s their choice.
But get upset over the game design in this area is a waste of breath.

Making a leader possibly and also ahistorically gay will be a total disaster for Firaxis, even total closure to their business.

Remember the recent Creegate, where Poundmaker, despite being designed totally peacemonger, have a potential to be a warmonger due to the game mechanic, and this insulted the Cree Nation?

Even if it's only 0.01% chance, it is still a potential.

What would Firaxis answer to angry Arabian that their leader is gay? Tsar Peter is gay? The great Emperor of China is gay? Gitarja, Queen of Java, is a lesbian? Jadwiga, a catholic saing, is a lesbian? Way more people will be pissed off to please just 5-10% LGBTS in the world, assuming all of them are playing Civilization 6 anyway.

I would think of these agendas like when a leader dispose someone's argument because her gender. "Ah, you're a woman. What do you know about politics?" This kind of condescending situation happens a lot, historically, even to nowadays in workplaces, etc. For flirtatious? Imagine when a medieval prince/King want to conquer or trade with another kingdom because the King have pretty daughter. Or propose royal marriage. This also happens a lot, historically.

If you dislike this, you can always mod it out. If you want an LGBT representation, you can also always mod it out. Just don't expect stuff like this to come from an official game developer, which can be held liable for taking this risk. I still want to play Civilization VII or VIII in the future.

Spoiler:

I'm getting really sick with this kind of politics nowadays, people keep campaigning for equality without knowing the consequences. It is true that until now, we doctors and scienties can't really figure out what causes homosexuality. A progress was made though, and it's about epigenetics. Some people born with "gay-potential gene" that can activate and dominate if it had a correct trigger in a correct environment. Much like keloid.

As upholded in my oath to respect and treat my patient whatever their orientation, race, etc.. I will even go as far as using the term "partner" instead of "husband/wife", and not even gonna try to convince them otherwise (no evidence it ever works, anyway). Imho this is progressive enough considering some of my colleagues are totally homophobic.

This condition, however, doesn't apply for me as a future parent. I have right to choose to have my children grows protected from LGBT ideas, just like those who choose for Sharia environment, democracy, communist environment, whatsoever. There has to be a limit. This is just how the world works. Call me backwards, but do consider too my background as an Asian living in Moslem-majority country. Sorry, this is just my two cents. I do have a lot of gay friends and I don't mind if they show their romanticism in front of me.

Still, when you play as a male leader and suddenly Shaka comes and says he doesn't like you because you are a man - it isn't a pleasant feeling, especially in the medieval era, when Shaka could easily arrive with kinght and impi corps at your door ... I just think the game mechanics create plenty of opportunities for other civs not to like you, this one is kind of excessive, in my opinion.

Still, when you play as a male leader and suddenly Shaka comes and says he doesn't like you because you are a man - it isn't a pleasant feeling, especially in the medieval era, when Shaka could easily arrive with kinght and impi corps at your door ... I just think the game mechanics create plenty of opportunities for other civs not to like you, this one is kind of excessive, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The very least they could do is get rid of the negative inverse of these agendas. It makes absolutely zero sense that a leader will hate you just because they like flirting with pretty girls and not guys, let alone that they'll denounce you over it. Make it so that they'll react positively towards opposite-gendered leaders, but be indifferent to same-gendered ones.

As for implied homosexuals, they could reconfigure "curmudgeon" to "fraternal/sororal" or something. Leave it up to the player to decide if he's just a total bro or quietly in love with your man parts, but calling them gay outright is obviously just... lol.

Regarding the vanilla game mechanic itself, I think it is idiotic idea and I have no idea how it was approved. Serious great emperors of world history flirting with mine head of state. What is this, anime? Anyway, it's also ridiculous game design - AI empires hating me over something I have completely no control over, because it sounds cool on paper. Yeah, great.

Catholic Saint Jadwiga flirting with great warrior of Islam Salah ud Din. That's... kind of insulting to both of them.

I don't really care about any implications of these traits, but they are unneeded for one simple reason: they arbitrary hinder gameplay.

Also, how is Alexander gay? Guy had several wives (with one of whom, Roxana, he was described to be infatuated with, and had kids with her), a mistress (with whom he also reportedly had a child), and a harem. The only evidence he was gay is that he had a close friendship with his best friend Hephaestion. At most, he was bi.

Incorrect, part of the game is politics whether you like it or not. If you do not want to play politics that is your choice. However I do like to play politics and they encourage gameplay, hidden agendas I may want to reveal with an early trade route so I have a better idea how well my long term relationship is going to be like with a key neighbour. Hell, I will even change my gameplay to suit their agendas sometimes, even change government.
So they in fact encourage gameplay, it’s just your choice that makes them meaningless or annoying to you.

Also, how is Alexander gay? Guy had several wives (with one of which, Roxana, he was described to be infatuated with, and had kids with her), a mistress (with whom he also reportedly had a child), and a harem. The only evidence he was gay is that he had a close friendship with his best friend Hephaestion. At most, he was bi.

Click to expand...

I mentioned this before in this thread but sources repeatedly mention him barely displaying interest in his wives and other women. Marriage was a requirement of politics, many Greeks that we can fully support as "gay" (though I'd hesitate to confuse the Greek interpretation of it with our Modern motion of it) maintained wives because that was expected within influential families.

I would add that the same evidence we have for Alexander/Hephaistion would probably already be enough to suggest a relationship if Hephaistion was a woman, just our modern hangups getting in the way.

I'm still on Vanilla, but this sounds absurd. I don't recall any foreign leader objecting to Elizabeth of England or Victoria because she was a woman. Internal politics, maybe (Knox vs Mary - First Blast of the Trumpet, etc), but a gay leader would look to his court for flirtation, not overseas (e.g. James VI/I). Also, once your civ becomes a republic, what matters is the national agenda, not a ruler's likes and dislikes. Any leader in Civ VI is best thought of as a figurehead for a nation, not a single controlling person acting on impulses.

I mentioned this before in this thread but sources repeatedly mention him barely displaying interest in his wives and other women. Marriage was a requirement of politics, many Greeks that we can fully support as "gay" (though I'd hesitate to confuse the Greek interpretation of it with our Modern motion of it) maintained wives because that was expected within influential families.

I would add that the same evidence we have for Alexander/Hephaistion would probably already be enough to suggest a relationship if Hephaistion was a woman, just our modern hangups getting in the way.

Click to expand...

Sources also explicitly say he was very much in love with Roxana. And again, he also had a mistress, so that was not really political. He was porbably bi, all things considered.
But anyway, I think this should probably be discussed in another forum section, so apologies for derailing the topic.

There's also Trajan. Cassius Dio comments on his fondness for boys (Book 68, section 7), and also tells a story of how a foreign king once sent a handsome youth to (successfully) conciliate Trajan (Book 68, section 21). Trajan was married, of course, but it was a childless marriage. The ancient world didn't divide people into gay and straight as we do, but it seems very likely that he was much more sexually interested in people of his own gender, and that his preferences were common knowledge in his time.

For example: a straight business man that prefers to do business with men.

Willingness to do politics with someone may or may not have anything to do with sexual orientation.

In my case it does, but that's just me. Really... Who can say no to Cleo? I'll trade a horse for that smile any day.

Click to expand...

I think the nature of a curmudgeon is they like the opposite gender but have had so little success with them romantically in the past that they've built up resentment. So there is some baggage implied with these agendas.

I think the nature of a curmudgeon is they like the opposite gender but have had so little success with them romantically in the past that they've built up resentment. So there is some baggage implied with these agendas.

Click to expand...

Yeah, representing curmudgeons as sexist is an unfair stereotype being perpetuated by Firaxis. We dislike everyone with no regards to sex, skin color or sexual orientation.

I am really getting sick of people inserting their politics into civ. If you have a problem with this gameplay-wise then fine, but lets not go down the rabbit hole of asking Firaxis to change things to fit our political beliefs because chances are we all have different beliefs and its impossible to please us all at once.

Click to expand...

Politics are in every game. Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin won't be chosen to appear in a Civ game in the near (or distant even?) future. Why? Politics, that's why. Saying people shouldn't have gay agendas or motivations, is in itself a political statement.

I don't know how much more resources will be used, but i do think making different agendas weight differently (and for some activates at a certain point) between each other can help the flavor/immersion. Agendas like these flirtarious/curmudgeon can matter less compared to Standing Army/Paranoid or any historical agendas. Should help getting around the "cannot-negotiate" problem of these two agendas.

As for my opinion i don't really mind, just hope that these two have lower chances overall compared to other hidden agendas because on a state-level these should not matter as much as more "serious" stuffs like military or economy.